AU must seek justice for Africa war victims

Speakers at a round table discussion, organised by the Africa Center for International Law & Accountability (ACILA), have bemoaned a decision by the Africa Union (AU), calling on member states to withdraw massively from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

According to the speakers, the AU should fight for justice for the millions of war victims on the African Continent, rather than calling for mass withdrawal of member states from the ICC.

The AU, on February 1, this year, at its annual heads of states summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, took a decision to call on members states to withdraw from the ICC, following allegations that the ICC is biased towards Africa.

But, Nigeria, the most populated country in Africa, and Senegal have opposed the decision, even though South Africa and Burundi have already decided to withdraw, saying the ICC is undermining their sovereignty, as well as targeting Africans unfairly.

The speakers include, Justice Emile Short, a former Judge at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Henry Kwasi Prempeh, Legal and Governance Consultant, Dr. Franklin Oduro, Transitional Justice Expert & Head of Research and Programmes/Deputy Director, CDD-Ghana, and William Nyarko, Executive Director of ACILA.

The theme of the round table discussion was “Africa and the International Criminal Court: African Leaders Strategy for Collective Withdrawal from the ICC and Implications for the Victims of International Crimes.”

Addressing participants, Justice Emile Short wondered what kind of discussions the African leaders hold at their meetings, which give them the impression that Africa is being targeted by the ICC.

He said five of the cases before the International Court were situations referred by the countries themselves, adding that it is, therefore, impossible for anyone to suggest that the ICC brought those cases against the countries on its own accord.

Justice Short explained that two of the cases were referred by the AU Security Council (SC), pointing out that it had nothing to do with the ICC. “Although our comments about the whole process of the SC favours the big powers, that is why probably Africa should be targeting, rather than assuming, they are being targeted.”

The former Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) continued: “So if you look at the facts on the ground, the allegation of targeting Africa does not jell.

“In the Kenya situation, a commission was set up to look into the situation, and they came out with a report and identified six ring leaders, and the names were given to the then President Kibaki, who handed it over to Kofi Annan, and the Commission recommended that Kenya set up a court to deal with the issue, but that did not happen,” he noted.

Continuing, Justice Emile Short posited that an ICC prosecutor was made to initiate the prosecution, stressing that “In that case also, you can see that ample time was given to Kenya to investigate the case themselves, but they did not.”

Justice Short pointed out that from the ongoing, it is difficult to appreciate the argument of the AU about the ICC being biased or targeting Africa, adding that the argument does not coincide with the facts on the ground.

The former CHRAJ boss argued that it is important to remember that African countries rallied support behind the ICC during its formative stages, saying they were very vocal, given the fact that the African Continent represented the biggest component of the ICC.

He said it is his belief that the one problem that started this agitation was when the ICC issued arrest warrants against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta, noting that might have sent shivers down the spine of the AU.

Dr. Franklin Oduro, Transitional Justice Expert & Head of Research and Programmes/Deputy Director of CDD-Ghana, did not understand why the AU is insisting that the ICC is biased.

He pointed out that the stance of the African leaders against the ICC, stems from the fact that charges and prosecutions have been brought against a handful of member states, as against the millions of African war victims who suffered in those jurisdictions, and in whose names these charges have been brought.

Dr. Oduro continued that it is sad that instead of ensuring that justice is served to the millions of war victims in Africa, the AU is focusing its attention on Kenya President Uhuru Kenyatta and two of his colleagues, for which reason they are claiming that the ICC is biased towards Africa.

Stating that the ICC is a victim-centered institution, Dr. Oduro said the AU has consistently, taken the side of African leaders, adding the ICC was not set up to protect the perpetrators, or alleged war criminals, but specifically to protect the victims.

On his part, William Nyarko, Executive Director of ACILA, said the ICC was set up as a war crime tribunal to handle cases of war victims, especially in situations where the countries in which these crimes were committed are unable to deal with the issue.

He explained that in Nigeria for example, where Boko Haram is terrorising citizens of the country, it is the responsibility of the President or Head of State to deal with the terrorist group, in order to get justice for the victims.